Musical Analysis

Do you think it still makes sense to do “analyses”?

In the interest of finding one's own language... why invest too much time in others?

Then, which ones? ... there are so many that when someone has understood a good 40% of them, they are pretty much dead... fortunately we live longer than Mozart, Schubert ... etc.

Tap wrote:

Do you think it still makes sense to do "analyses"?

From the perspective of finding one's own language... why invest too much time in others?

Phen, which ones? ... there are so many that when someone has understood a good 40% of them, they are pretty much dead... fortunately we live longer than Mozart, Schubert ... etc.

I don't know you yet, so I will try to answer in a diplomatic way.

Doing analysis makes sense. In recent years, musicology has questioned the meaning of analysis extensively, with arguments that are much, much, much, much, much more specific and pregnant than yours, but for academic honesty, I must say you are not the first to wonder if musical analysis makes sense.

That being said, for every person who has wondered if musical analysis made sense, 10 others have responded and argued very keenly that musical analysis does make sense. Furthermore, the vast majority of those who "believe" in musical analysis are composers. The branch of scholars seeking to reformulate its theories in order to make it a "weak" discipline is that of music sociologists-ethnomusicologists.

This is to make it clear that anyone wishing to delve deeper into the discussion can do so. There is much to be said.

To answer you (Tap), I say that anyone who wants to learn how to speak must be able to understand what others are saying. "Building one's own language" is a very misleading way of putting it. In music history, very few composers have built their own language; perhaps only Webern, Cage, and Scelsi have done so. The others have all found a style within an already established and, in a sense, shared language. What do I mean? I mean that, continuing with the language metaphor, anything you "say" musically can make sense. If you don't learn to understand the meaning of other compositions, not only will you fail to give meaning to your own, but you won't even know if they already have a meaning. Someone who doesn't know Italian doesn't understand the difference between *pipa* and *pippa*. Even if they wanted to break away and create an entirely new language, they would have to know the old one to understand what is truly new and what is not. There are levels of knowledge, obviously. And also different "ways" of knowing, which is the previous point about analysis as a "weak" discipline. But believing you can do without musical analysis is at the very least "naïve," if not stupid.

Bringing the discussion to the practical side, I often answer in a very simple way to those who ask me what this or that branch of music is for: one day when you realize you don't feel like studying music, have you asked yourself if that was truly your path? We don't all have to be musicians! I have had many university colleagues who deeply resented studying music history. But excuse me, you are enrolled in musicology, what did you think you were studying, porn film history?! To me, a composer who only wants to write, without reading or listening, is above all an exhibitionist, not a good composer. I would use an American expression that I think describes a common attitude today in many parts of the culture and entertainment world very well: they are all "attention whores." Narcissists.

GianBurrasca wrote:

A certain curiosity has been sparked in me for a while now: when did musical analysis begin?

In the late nineteenth century, it established itself as a discipline in its own right, but there are already traces dating back to the mid-eighteenth century.

thallo wrote:

(...) In recent years, musicology has questioned the meaning of analysis extensively, with arguments that are much, much, much, much, much more specific and pregnant than yours, but for academic honesty, I must say you are not the first to wonder if musical analysis makes sense. (...)

Legendary Thallo, your answers are always extremely interesting and also enjoyable

ps

but don't always get angry at slightly naive questions

AleGozzo wrote:

Legendary Thallo, your answers are always extremely interesting and also enjoyable

I quote!

Ludovica wrote:

In the late nineteenth century it establishes itself as a discipline in its own right, but there are already traces starting from the mid-eighteenth century.

i didn't think that as early as the '70s they were already going at it with analysis

Tap wrote:

Do you think it still makes sense to do "analyses"?

Let's do the opposite: what sense would it make not to do them? A conductor wants to conduct a Bartók concert; how would they understand its structures in order to propose an accurate and credible interpretation?

thallo wrote:

i must say that you are not the first to wonder if musical analysis makes sense.

You were off to a great start

...but then

thallo wrote:

For me, a composer who only wants to write, without reading or listening, is above all an exhibitionist, not a good composer

Listening is enjoying a piece, reading is a means to make someone enjoy a piece... what is analyzing?

AleGozzo wrote:

a few naive questions

What do you think, AleGozzo?

Eagle wrote:

Let's do the opposite, what sense would there be in not doing it? A conductor wants to conduct a Bartók concert, how would they understand its structures to propose an accurate and credible interpretation?

But an interpreter must understand another's thought if they want to "bring it back"... the composer must write one of their own

Let's do this: in your opinion, does it still make sense for a composer to perform "analyses"?

doing "analysis" means reading. Reading does not mean sight-singing, it means understanding what is written. Therefore, the only way to understand what is written is to analyze.

do you think it still makes sense for a composer to do "analysis"?

in my opinion and according to most of the serious composers I know, yes

AbateFaria wrote:

i didn't think that as early as the '700s they were already going at it with analysis

Analytical practice, understood as a theoretical tool, even if subsidiary, has existed since the Middle Ages.

Think about when ancient scholars dealt with modality (or even other things), they always cited some composition to clarify a technical or structural problem; it didn't take much for them to manifest what is defined today as an analytical mentality.

A thing has always existed because it is useful

For the interested and the skeptics, I would suggest a quick look at Bent (Musical Analysis).

I was saying on edumus days ago, medieval polyphony is inconceivable without analysis. The treatment of the tenor presupposes an in-depth knowledge, from both a melodic and modal point of view. In fact, I would say that concentrating the analysis on a single line is the extreme example of how much can be derived from a well-done analysis!

In my opinion, analyzing is fundamental to understanding how a composer arrived at a musical result, why they wrote certain things, and how they elaborated them. It is a sort of identification. In these cases, analysis bears fruit; otherwise, when one attempts to analyze based on one's own convictions that have little to do with reality (and Schenker comes to mind in part), one risks hitting a wall.

Feldman wrote:

It is a sort of identification. The fruits of analysis are, in these cases, otherwise; when one attempts to analyze based on one's own convictions that have little to do with reality (and Schenker comes to mind in part), one risks hitting a wall.

To tell you the whole truth, Schenker did not intend to become a reference theorist of analysis; he "tried" to analyze the repertoire according to his own criteria, his own methodology and, above all, for his own use and consumption... you know the rest of the story.

So it is his way of "identifying" ...

Feldman wrote:

In my opinion, analyzing is fundamental to understanding how a composer arrived at a musical result, why they wrote certain things, and how they elaborated them. It is a sort of identification. The fruits of analysis in these cases are significant; otherwise, when one attempts to analyze based on one's own convictions that have little to do with reality (and Schenker comes to mind in part), one risks hitting a wall.

I disagree. The study of sketches has demonstrated multiple times that analysis does NOT clarify compositional methodologies or the steps of composition. I am not an expert in anything, least of all philology, but I know for certain that it is now established that musical analysis does not provide material to understand how a piece was composed.

mmmhmm, let's just say that the creative process can never be reconstructed ... but its result can

thallo wrote:

I do not agree. The study of sketches has demonstrated multiple times that analysis does NOT clarify compositional methodologies, the steps of composition. I am no expert in anything, least of all philology, but I know for certain that it is now an established fact that musical analysis does not provide material to understand how a piece was composed.

So what does musical analysis give us? The study of sketches has allowed us to understand that while Haydn started from the theme and then elaborated, Beethoven organized the form and structure of the piece simultaneously with the theme, planned the elaboration, and based on certain choices made modifications to the theme and adapted it to the logic of his piece.... therefore analysis allows us to understand the HOW, not just the WHY of a certain strategic choice.

Does analyzing not mean understanding what the relationships are between the different elements of a large-scale composition and more?7

I believe there is a substantial difference between pure description and analysis.

I agree with Feldman

The approach is part of the creative phase

Master Ligeti gives a beautiful lesson at minute 20.22:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dM9wwp8w38

Open content (youtube)